Yet another conference realignment rumor...

[TheSultan]

Maryland and another ACC school to Big Ten...likely Georgia Tech.

https://twitter.com/JerryFisherPSU/status/269560852804423680

[MUBasketball]

Nope.......

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

Why nope? I certainly don't think anything is out of the realm of possibilities... This would be horrendous for the Big East because then the ACC could poach Louisville, Cincy, UCONN, Rutgers, or USF... Would imagine Louisville would be first to go. It is just a matter of time... I wish the Big East had the clout to steal back and grab a good ACC team.

[kneelb4zerg]

This rumor is ********. Can hardly wait until the 'announcement' on Tuesday.

[MUBasketball]

Why nope? I certainly don't think anything is out of the realm of possibilities... This would be horrendous for the Big East because then the ACC could poach Louisville, Cincy, UCONN, Rutgers, or USF... Would imagine Louisville would be first to go. It is just a matter of time... I wish the Big East had the clout to steal back and grab a good ACC team.

You honestly think any ACC school is going to pay $50 million just to leave?

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

I checked the Maryland board and nobody seems really surprised, one guy said where there is smoke there is fire... And that there is a lot of smoke lately... This won't end well for the Big East, unless they could somehow poach a school like Georgia Tech...

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

You honestly think any ACC school is going to pay $50 million just to leave?


Yes... They would make $7 mil a year more in the Big 10 and I wouldn't be surprised if the Big 10 was willing to pony up to help them make the move.

[kneelb4zerg]

That news conference on Tuesday will be a doozy.. What time is it scheduled for? Keep me updated.

[Phantom Warrior]

The ACC will never add Louisville. They would consider UConn and even Rutgers before Louisville.

Louisville's academic rep and status would never fly with the elites of the ACC, like Duke, UNC, Virginia, and Wake Forest. For that matter, UConn would be a stretch.

I could see Louisville fitting in with Big 12 schools, but not the ACC, and Kentucky would never, ever approve of their joining the SEC.

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

Rumor on the badger board is Rutgers and Maryland to B10... I'm not saying its gonna happen, I don't know anything, but nothing surprises me at this point, it's certainly not out of the idea.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

When it comes to the Big Ten, the main key is to keep an eye on the public AAU list. People can say academics don't matter, but they haven't added anyone not on that list (Nebraska was a member when voted into the B1G). Maryland, Georgia Tech, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, Colorado, Kansas, Iowa State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, and Virginia are the notables.

I'd still be surprised by this. $50M is a lot of scratch, and if they were going to split the cost, would Maryland be worth $25M? And I can't see them going to an odd number, so who joins them? Pitt and ISU both conflict with current B1G markets, they've passed on Missouri and Texas in the past, A&M is likely happy in the SEC, and personally I'm not at all convinced Rutgers brings enough value; if the ACC wasn't interested why would the B1G be?

[TheSultan]

If I were forced to make a bet, I would guess this isn't happening. However, a number of these rumors are coming out of Baltimore, so I thought I would pass it along.

And Maryland would pay the exit fee to do this. They would simply borrow from the B10 against future television distributions and they would still come out ahead in the long run.

[MUBasketball]

In the end, I clearly have no idea obviously. As has been mentioned, nothing will surprise me with conference realignment anymore.

However, I would be pretty shocked. I thought the Big Ten was basically finished when they added Nebraska. 12 seems to be a number they are very happy being at.

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

If this happens that has got to hurt the ACC media deal right? My fear is that this will lead to another landslide of changes, like Rutgers & Maryland to B10, then the B12 goes after Louisville and Florida State, then the SEC needs two more to make 16 and next thing you know the Big East and ACC are left fighting it out for teams.

[unclejohn]

What we really need is one mega-conference with 156 football teams!

[Phantom Warrior]

What we really need is for high schools and colleges to end football programs bvecause of all the serious consequences to these young men's health and future.

Over the past three years, I've had at least four football players have to give up all contact sports because they've had more than one serious concussion. It's really getting crazy! And I have to wonder how many more kids are going to end up with problems down the road due to head injuries.

It's never going to happen, obviously - too much money involved. But an awful lot of kids are going to suffer the consequences later in life.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

I wouldn't say never. At some point, football is going to go away. It's simply too violent and does too much irreparable harm. The insurance premiums will eventually make it impossible for high schools to sustain and the sport will wane from there up. It may not happen in our lifetimes, but I have no doubt that before too long people will look back at football as a barbarism similar to the Roman gladiatorial arenas.

Honestly, I would never let a child of mine play football. Hearing about the damage not just from concussive hits but also from sub-concussive hits is terrifying, and looking at the life expectancies of players it's obviously not something that's good for you.

[MayorBeluga]

If I were forced to make a bet, I would guess this isn't happening. However, a number of these rumors are coming out of Baltimore, so I thought I would pass it along.

And Maryland would pay the exit fee to do this. They would simply borrow from the B10 against future television distributions and they would still come out ahead in the long run.

Maryland athletics has been hemoraging money the past few year. Throw in a nearly bankrupt state government and it begins to look doubtful that they can pay the $50M exit fee.

This is truly insane right now. Hizzoner will say it again - time for the NCAA and college athletics to lose their tax exempt status.

[TheSultan]

Maryland athletics has been hemoraging money the past few year. Throw in a nearly bankrupt state government and it begins to look doubtful that they can pay the $50M exit fee.

This is truly insane right now. Hizzoner will say it again - time for the NCAA and college athletics to lose their tax exempt status.


But if Maryland athletics are "hemoraging money," it wouldn't pay any taxes anyway.

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

http://m.espn.go.com/ncf/story?storyId=8644587

The rumors are getting louder, looks like the Big East needs to brace itself.

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

So here is what I see... Rutgers and MD to B10... UCONN and G'town to ACC... Louisville and UC to B12... And the Big East then becomes CUSA v2.0

[GOMU1104]

Some rumors out there that Kevin Plank could contribute to paying the exit fee.

[Phantom Warrior]

I don't see the ACC going after GTown. That would open up another Pandora's Box.

[MayorBeluga]

But if Maryland athletics are "hemoraging money," it wouldn't pay any taxes anyway.

Athletic department doesn't have the cash to pay the exit fee. Neither does the state.

As for losing tax exempt status, that's a bigger issue. Since the NCAA, conferences and athletic departments are operating like for profit entities, treat them that way.

[kneelb4zerg]

Ok I'm dumb for mocking this rumor. Never mind. Commence freaking out.

[TheSultan]

Athletic department doesn't have the cash to pay the exit fee. Neither does the state.

As for losing tax exempt status, that's a bigger issue. Since the NCAA, conferences and athletic departments are operating like for profit entities, treat them that way.


A lot of not-for-profits "act like for profit entities," so I am not sure what separates the NCAA from say Aurora Hospital. I think the bigger question is if athletics should be unrelated business income - and I think it should be. And my guess is that the buyout will be financed by the B10 against future revenues, and if they truly are negotiating, it is over those types of issues.

[Mark Miller]

Greed is killing collegiate athletics.

Pure and simple.

[GOMU1104]

Rumor on the badger board is Rutgers and Maryland to B10... I'm not saying its gonna happen, I don't know anything, but nothing surprises me at this point, it's certainly not out of the idea.


Greed is killing collegiate athletics.

Pure and simple.

Is it?

I'd say it's torturing us fans of basketball only schools, but is it really "killing" it as a whole? I think that's a little extreme.

As is the same in pretty much every aspect of life: Money over everything.

[MUMac]

Is it?

I'd say it's torturing us fans of basketball only schools, but is it really "killing" it as a whole? I think that's a little extreme.

As is the same in pretty much every aspect of life: Money over everything.

It is killing college basketball and all other sports. Football survives. So, no, I do not agree with your impression that it is an extreme. Frankly, I see your thoughts as naive.

That said, I agree with a post earlier. I do believe that concussions and injuries will hurt the future of football at all levels. You are seeing the changes in rules impacting the game. I think that will become greater and water it down, to a degree. Will football die? No, but the sport will be different.

I also think the greed of the BCS will overplay and negatively impact the sport. Greed always does cause harm.

[GOMU1104]

Is there any actual evidence that other sports are being killed? Just because you say things out of frustration, and want them to be true...doesn't make them true.

You can point to the Big East tv situation, and I guess you'd be right...but what else is there proving it at this point?

Again...we are jaded by this, because we dont have a seat at table and the future of our hoops program is in peril, but the doom and gloom about the future of college sports as a whole is alittle unfounded.

[bleedbluegold03]

it's tearing apart historic rivalries which for me, and I can assume for many others, is one of the best things about sports.

it sucked losing Tampa Bay from the NFC Central back when because of the great battles between Sapp and Favre teams and now it is non existent. A very easy comparison is the Pitt series; FANTASTIC, back and forth battles every time out there and after this year it will be so long.

With constant realignment, it's constant chipping at the foundation of college athletics

[Gato78]

Have to agree with Hizzoner. Congress should have been looking at this several years back. The BCS has turned college sports into profit centers, and has made major college football and basketball more like minor leagues. The NCAA is a paper tiger. The whole scholar-athlete concept is eroding. There needs to be a total refocus and college presidents are afraid of standing up to it beciause they have tight budgets. The purpose for conference realignment is solely money which has bastardized the entire process.

[MUMac]

Is there any actual evidence that other sports are being killed? Just because you say things out of frustration, and want them to be true...doesn't make them true.

You can point to the Big East tv situation, and I guess you'd be right...but what else is there proving it at this point?

Again...we are jaded by this, because we dont have a seat at table and the future of our hoops program is in peril, but the doom and gloom about the future of college sports as a whole is alittle unfounded.

You can divine my emotions on a message board? Really? No, I am not frustrated, son. Not at all. Nor am I naive, as you are.

Your argument is solely basketball. That is where your understanding of the comment is misguided. The comment was athletics. All other sports are at the expense of football. Yes, we have seen that. Football is king right now, all other sports are at the mercy of football.

And the comment was "killing", not "killed".

[TheSultan]

The only question I have is, what do you think taxation is going to accomplish? Yes it will earn money for the federal government, but how will this change the current atmosphere in college athletics? If anything, it will make schools look at money even more when making these decisions. With all due respect, everyone here is part of the problem. We watch the games...we want MU to cut corners for success on the court... If we really cared about the traditional scholar-athlete concept, we will all be sitting on the local D3 gyms right now - but we aren't.

[TheSultan]

it sucked losing Tampa Bay from the NFC Central back when because of the great battles between Sapp and Favre teams and now it is non existent.


You must be a relatively young Packer fan, because outside of a few years in the late 90s / early 00s, that rivalry sucked. Most of the time it was played with one or two of the teams being simply awful.

[GOMU1104]

You can divine my emotions on a message board? Really? No, I am not frustrated, son. Not at all. Nor am I naive, as you are.

Your argument is solely basketball. That is where your understanding of the comment is misguided. The comment was athletics. All other sports are at the expense of football. Yes, we have seen that. Football is king right now, all other sports are at the mercy of football.

And the comment was "killing", not "killed".

First off..."son?" Really Internet tough guy, really?

Am I really naive to request some sort of evidence that proves that realignment is "killing" college athletics?

If, in 5/10/20/50 years, college athletics as a whole (beyond football) is dead, you can come on here and call me "son" and tell me I was naive and wrong.

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

I would tend to agree with those that say it is dying, the fun of college sports for me was the rivalries that meant so much to so many people, and while all of those rivalries aren't gone they are slowly being eliminated and it is becoming not a system of more parity, but trying to create a have and have not type system where the large universities will have such an extreme advantage over everyone else that it's just not fair. This is why I don't watch baseball because it is just stupid, the same teams win the vast majority of the championships and the small market teams can barely compete on a regular basis, that isn't fun to watch, fun is parity and rooting for the underdog. All this realignment crap just pushes the NCAA farther and farther from parity, and it was just getting to the point where mid majors were starting to rise up like Boise in football and Butler and VCU in basketball, those were great stories. With the new super conferences that won't happen anymore.

[Phantom Warrior]

I would say that the so-called minor sports are being negatively affected by all of this realignment primarily in terms of travel. The greater distance a team has to travel, the more costly it is and the more time it takes.

In the former Big 10, having soccer, volleyball, swimming, and a myriad of other teams have to travel to Maryland and Rutgers as well as to the campuses of traditional conference rivals, means more money spent and more time away from classes.

Adding Texas and Missouri to the SEC does the same thing as do the additions of Syracuse and Pitt to the ACC.

Having Big East teams travel to Houston and Dallas is just plain silly, and imagine what the cost and time commitments are for athletes at both Houston and SMU.

Before all this realignment, competition was pretty much regional in the "minor" sports. But the expansion beyond regional affiliations has made the lives of these athletes much more demanding and complicated.

So in a sense, yes, I thnk realignment is ruining - not necessarily killing - college athletics, and that's a damn shame.

[Mucrisco]

I hate college football. I just don't get enjoyment watching it because it is ruining our great basketball conference. Why can't football just make their own conferences, instead of dragging all these other sports with them? Make your six or so super conferences. Include teams like Boise St. Heck, make it like the NFL where there are divisions and conferences where you always play division teams, but rotate your non division opponents. Then, leave all the other sports alone. They should make me the college sports czar.

[warriorfan4life]

I hate college football. I just don't get enjoyment watching it because it is ruining our great basketball conference. Why can't football just make their own conferences, instead of dragging all these other sports with them? Make your six or so super conferences. Include teams like Boise St. Heck, make it like the NFL where there are divisions and conferences where you always play division teams, but rotate your non division opponents. Then, leave all the other sports alone. They should make me the college sports czar.


Down the line I could see that happening. I think there will be four super conferences, and they eventually all fail because of geographic issues and lack of real partnership and connection between conference members (what do Stanford/Cal and Utah have in common).

[Nukem2]

Down the line I could see that happening. I think there will be four super conferences, and they eventually all fail because of geographic issues and lack of real partnership and connection between conference members (what do Stanford/Cal and Utah have in common).Utah is a far better fit with those schools than Maryland is with the Big 10/12/14 both geographically and demographically.

[Nukem2]

Watched the Bucky-Buckeyes game yesterday. The Big 10/12 is really weak again. That's "big-time" FB...?

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

It really is amazing how much money they generate with what has become a second-tier football league. They're easily behind the SEC and Pac-12, and you could argue they're behind the ACC, and Big 12, and about on par with the Big East. How sad is it that if the B1G poached Rutgers, that would be the second highest-ranked team they'd have in the AP Poll?

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

It's because they are all large state schools with massive fan bases, that's a huge advantage for them... The majority of people in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania grew up rooting for a Big 10 program... That's massive. The Big East just doesn't have that many massive state schools.

[Nukem2]

It's because they are all large state schools with massive fan bases, that's a huge advantage for them... The majority of people in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania grew up rooting for a Big 10 program... That's massive. The Big East just doesn't have that many massive state schools.No doubt about that, but it's still 2nd tier FB. Guess the "elite" are easily satisfied with an excuse for parties and tailgating.......:p

[TheSultan]

It really is amazing how much money they generate with what has become a second-tier football league. They're easily behind the SEC and Pac-12, and you could argue they're behind the ACC, and Big 12, and about on par with the Big East. How sad is it that if the B1G poached Rutgers, that would be the second highest-ranked team they'd have in the AP Poll?


Good thing these types of decisions aren't based on one year of results.

[Nukem2]

Good thing these types of decisions aren't based on one year of results.
But, the Big 10/12/14 has been sub-par in FB for a long time. Rutgers would be more of an on-the-field upgrade in FB than was Nebraska ( which even lost its AAU membership which helped qualify its for entree to this conference.

[TheSultan]

But, the Big 10/12/14 has been sub-par in FB for a long time. Rutgers would be more of an on-the-field upgrade in FB than was Nebraska ( which even lost its AAU membership which helped qualify its for entree to this conference.


Rutgers would be about the sixth best team in the B10 this year. Big East football is pretty poor. (And I might be being generous by having Rutgers sixth. They have a lower strength of schedule than all but two B10 teams.)

But yeah, the B10 has been down...I guess your definition of "long time" is different than mine because within the past decade they have been just below the SEC in terms of competition.

[Nukem2]

Rutgers would be about the sixth best team in the B10 this year. Big East football is pretty poor.

But yeah, the B10 has been down...I guess your definition of "long time" is different than mine because within the past decade they have been just below the SEC in terms of competition.Big 10/12 FB has been dull and tedious for many years. Maybe a good team or two each year (especially OSU in some years). Otherwise, poor. Bucky gets good records beating up on hapless teams. Not so good out of conference.

[TheSultan]

Big 10/12 FB has been dull and tedious for many years. Maybe a good team or two each year (especially OSU in some years). Otherwise, poor. Bucky gets good records beating up on hapless teams. Not so good out of conference.


Yet they still have tens of thousands in the stands and draw big television ratings...unlike either the ACC or the BE.

[Nukem2]

Yet they still have tens of thousands in the stands and draw big television ratings...unlike either the ACC or the BE.
No argument there, but that's a product of being the state universities. But, the FB is still crappy (because of the stellar scholars on these AAU-related FB teams ....
:p). Don't mean to be argumentative, just don't think the conference is all that strong FB-wise.

[warriorfan4life]

No argument there, but that's a product of being the state universities. But, the FB is still crappy (because of the stellar scholars on these AAU-related FB teams ....
:p). Don't mean to be argumentative, just don't think the conference is all that strong FB-wise.

It is amazingly strong off the field with fan interest and the BTN. The actual product though blows and always has. I would love for the crappiness of the product to eventually diminish the conference, but it has not happened so far and it does not look likely in the future.

[TedBaxter]

This is sad on many fronts. Is any of this greed by Jim Delany really necessary? All he and some of these conferences are really doing is trying to tear down other conferences, not just strengthening theirs. When did these guys become so cutthroat? It's also sad what you read on some other conference message boards about not liking the move of these teams, but in glee over the demise of the Big East and ACC. Really, is that what college athletics have become now? Happiness over other's demise, especially when everything in it's current state is working pretty well?

Positioning the conferences for more money from TV. That seems to be the bottom line of all of this. Throw out natural and traditional rivalries and the Big East started some of this with adding MU.

The only thing that matters to me is that Marquette is still able to play D1 basketball. If not, my interest in the sport will go away. As I said on another board, in the end I wouldn't mine seeing a conference of Georgetown, Villanova, St. John's, Providence, Seton Hall, Xavier, Dayton, Butler, Marquette, DePaul and if they want to go to 12 schools, add Saint Louis and an eastern private school from among St. Joe's, LaSalle, Richmond and Siena. Larger media markets and like schools.

[TedBaxter]

.............

[IrwinFletcher]

Since the conference re-alignment started X years ago, never did it have anything to do with the quality of play, quality of programs or winning games. It has always been about money. Yes the Big10 is bad football outside of Michigan, OSU and sometimes Nebraska, WI and PSU. But all of the programs, save Northwestern, have enrollments of 30,000 or so and have hundreds of thousands of alumni.

Outside of the schools listed above, rarely do the other teams sell out games except when one of the above teams travel for away games.

This is all about TV contracts period. If the Big Network can offer programing to millions of people, that is all that matters these days.

Maryland and Rutgers to the Big 10 adds nothing to football quality and minimal to basketball. Syracuse and Pitt to the ACC adds nothing to football and some quality to hoops. Tex A&M and Missouri adds little to football (this season notwithstanding for A&M) because the conference was soooo good before hand. Colorado and Utah adds nothing to the PAC 12 for football and basketball.

Marquette's value is in buckets and some recent success in Olympic Sports. Our fan base is small and relatively local to Milwaukee and a bit of Chicago. I doubt we will be sought after with the lone excpetion of ND extending a hand and asking us to come along for the ride in some way.

[TheSultan]

Well stated on all points Irwin....

[Nukem2]

Well stated on all points Irwin....Sad, but true... Such is life....

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Good thing these types of decisions aren't based on one year of results.

As Nukem pointed out, the B1G has been pretty poor at football for quite awhile. In the BCS era, they have only 3 championship game appearances and one title. That's on par with the ACC and Big East, and lagging well behind the SEC and Big 12. For a league that is such a high-money league, you'd think they'd at least be competing for championships. The last time they put a team in the title game was 5 years ago.

You can argue they're better than the Big East, fine, but they aren't close to the SEC or Big 12, and unless things change, this year will be the third straight year that the Pac-12 placed 3 teams in the polls ahead of the top B1G team. I've heard some arguments that claim they are the 7th best football conference, I think that's a stretch, but they are at best 4th.